Friday - just contemplating

Had to wait for my coffee to cool down a few degrees this morning because - - if this gets too personal or gross, tell me and I'll stop - - the fried whole flounder at Hunt's the other day, soon as the waitperson (see, I'm doing really well politically correct-wise, aren't I, I didn't say waitress) set it down in front of me, it was so beautiful, and was scored into bite-size squares, and I forked up a bite and popped it into my mouth: delicious, scrumptious, excellent, straight out of the boiling oil searing hot, blistered that little thing, I think it's called the incisive papilla or palatine papilla, right in center-front of the roof of my mouth; that's always so easy to blister. It's healing, but still sensitive to heat.

I'd order the flounder again, although I'd rather have it grilled or broiled. Maybe they don't offer it that way because flounder starts falling apart very easily when cooked, IDK.

Breakfast, with the second mug of warm black coffee: avoiding breads so as to ward off "carb coma", one Ball Park frank microwaved and allowed to cool down, one slice each Boar's Head ham, turkey breast and chicken breast, rolled and sliced into bites. Sitting at my little table/desk at the Bay-side window, watching water traffic, several small boats in the channel out at the Pass. Lovely morning, and a lovely day ahead.

Reading my book yesterday, Marcus Borg, "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" I came across a short list he offers, positive and negative, in putting together his impressions into an image, he prefers to call it a sketch or gestalt, of Jesus.

Not fine details, more like an impressionistic painting. Renoir's "Luncheon of the Boating Party" - you can recognize all his friends, but it's not so detailed as to see the color of their eyes; there are bushes, shrubbery, behind them, you know they're there, there's greenery, but no leaves.

So with Borg's sketch of Jesus, as a man, as the synoptics have him, not details, but Borg's impression, assembled from various, he calls them "brush strokes".

Borg starts with a list of negative (what Borg says Jesus was not) and positive (what Borg says Jesus was) "strokes". So, what stopped me and sent me researching and reading elsewhere online (the internet is better than a library, because you have all the books in the world, and also from many, many students, their doctoral dissertation, their masters thesis, many competent term papers and well-researched course theses), on Borg's list, that Jesus was not an apocalyptic prophet.

Which caught me up short, because, although scholars' longstanding views of that as a generally accepted opinion declined through the twentieth century, it still seems pretty clear to me, assuming that Jesus really said several of his statements in the synoptic gospels, especially Mark, who, c.a. 70 AD, had other agenda than Matthew and Luke, and less Time elapsed since Easter for incorporating the developing beliefs of the early Christian movement:

And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” (Mark 9:1)

“Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.” (Mark 13:30)

So, there are dozens, scores, hundreds of writings on the subject, including debating whether Jesus' proclamation was primarily apocalyptic, like that of John the Baptist, about the forthcoming, even imminent, End of Days and coming of the Son of Man; or was primarily sociological, about social justice, and equality and love your neighbor; not Jesus the Exalted Christ as the Church offers him to us, but two principal views of the historical Jesus as mainline Christian scholars perceive him to have been, apocalypticist or social reformer.

Ours, the Episcopal Church, seems in line with the social reform side of it, as our Baptismal Covenant shows. Although medieval church theology continues to surface even in our contemporary Eucharistic Prayers.

Anyway, in relative retirement to do as I DWP, I spent most of yesterday reading and rereading various NT scholars and students on that topic.

Both points of view differ from what the Church primarily taught over the ages (mainline churches less these days as, regardless that our liturgical words [and therefore, lex orandi lex credendi our expressed theology] are years/decades/ages slow in catching up, we/they move toward Jesus as love, social reformer, love your neighbor, social activism), especially (I think) still the majority of Christianity, evangelical and pentecostal churches, teaching and preaching a personal salvation gospel of believing in Jesus, and that he came to die for our sins, and that God raised him from the dead, so as to be Saved into Heaven when we die; primarily a takeoff from Paul's teaching, not from what I discern about Jesus in the gospels.

Not to suggest or judge as "correct" or "incorrect"; "true" or "misled".

At any event, the apocalyptic and the social reform historical Jesus gestalt seem to be the main features among scholars of the so-called mainline Christian churches. What was he really like before Easter, from which point his followers and the Church took over?

So, I'm struggling more to make up my own mind than I usually feel called to do. Generally, I'm happy to read all of it and be content just to know that there's disagreement, and understand both sides. In this case I'm more of the eschatological/apocalyptic persuasion for what Borg and others call the pre-Easter Jesus, and the social reform side for the post-Easter Jesus. And pretty much not at all for what the Church has made of Christianity over the centuries, the dogma of a personal salvation gospel. Nor with the Church's assertion of authority and exercise of control over those who submit out of fear. I like our current Episcopal Church: All are welcome, No exceptions.

Enough flitting from flower to flower for a Friday when I need to be doing other things, a bit of exercise, and preparing for Sunday.

RSF&PTL